how that Google engineers are not the only
>>> ones to be confused by this:
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-4218647
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8092698
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8156186
>>>
>>> So we also wonder if it would make sense to deprecate Double.MIN_VALUE
>>> itself and introduce Double.MIN_POSITIVE_VALUE with the same meaning.
>>> Obviously the same thing would apply to Float.
>>>
>>>
--
Louis Wasserman (he/they)
86
>>
>> So we also wonder if it would make sense to deprecate Double.MIN_VALUE
>> itself and introduce Double.MIN_POSITIVE_VALUE with the same meaning.
>> Obviously the same thing would apply to Float.
>>
>
>
> --
> Archie L. Cobbs
>
--
Louis Wasserman (he/they)
Moved to loom-dev; core-libs-dev to bcc.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:10 PM Alan Bateman
wrote:
> Probably best to bring this to loom-dev as there have been some
> exploration into but where we decided not to expose any APIs at this time.
>
> -Alan
>
> On 09/07/2024 19:50, Lou
pshot and string together stack trace causal
chains like this in production could significantly improve the experience
of debugging concurrent code.
--
Louis Wasserman
ld benchmarks
>> would have to be written with various-sized data sets.
>> >
>> > It would also be possible to produce primitive variations which operate
>> on int, float, long, and double values, using existing functions if
>> capturing is deemed "OK". It is also possible to produce a variation which
>> uses a `long` for the index, for huge data sets (for example, very large
>> mapped files using `MemorySegment`).
>> >
>> > Also unclear is: where would it live? `Collections`? Somewhere else?
>> >
>> > Any thoughts/opinions would be appreciated (even if they are along the
>> lines of "it's not worth the effort"). Particularly, any insight would be
>> appreciated as to whether or not this kind of hypothetical enhancement
>> would warrant a JEP (I wouldn't think so, but I'm no expert at such
>> assessments).
>> >
>> > --
>> > - DML • he/him
>>
>> Have a look at this recently filed issue:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8326330
>>
>> -Pavel
>>
>>
>>
--
Louis Wasserman (he/they)
x27;m hoping we can achieve the same clarity for instant -
> instant by using the obvious name: instant.minus(instant)
>
> But you can't have
> instant + instant = ???
> It doesn't make sense.
>
> This is at the heart of why minus isn't right in this case.
> Stephen
>
--
Louis Wasserman (he/they)
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 14:33:26 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> What are the scenarios which had regressions?
>> Given the conservative growth for StringBuilder, it surprises me a bit that
>> any scenario would regress.
>
> I took a second look and it turns out that there were neither regressions no
Could you do that benchmark with e.g. JMH rather than taking the difference
of System.currentTimeMillis? That would probably make it easier to read
and trust the results.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023, 7:56 PM Sergey Kuksenko wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:00:05 GMT, Xiaowei Lu wrote:
>
> > [JDK-82696
